New lawsuit challenges US FDA on dental amalgam mercury

A new lawsuit claims that despite growing evidence of harm caused by dental amalgam, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to delay the protection of public health against mercury tooth fillings.

March 6, 2014
by Hazmat Management

Categories

Tags

A new lawsuit claims that despite growing evidence of harm caused by dental amalgam, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to delay the protection of public health against mercury tooth fillings.

The case has a number of plaintiffs, including the International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology, which claim that the FDA has failed to respond within a reasonable time to petitions calling for either a formal ban of dental amalgam use, or placement in FDA’s Class III, which requires: 1) additional restrictions for vulnerable individuals; 2) more stringent proof of safety; and 3) an Environmental Impact Statement.

According to attorney James M. Love, who filed the lawsuit on March 5, 2014, American consumers and dental professionals are being misled by the American Dental Association (ADA) — the largest and most powerful advocate for continued amalgam use.

“The ADA has misrepresented FDA’s lack of regulation as proof of safety, and continues to use this toxic dental filling, despite scientifically demonstrated risks,” said Love. “Most individuals remain unaware that those ‘silver’ fillings, prevalently used as a dental restoration and covered by insurance policies, consist of 45-55 per cent metallic mercury, and that there are health and environmental risks associated with those fillings.”

Top scientists have repeatedly warned the FDA of the risk of harm caused by dental fillings, the lawsuit notes. For example, a February 2014 study, “[n]ew science challenges old notion that mercury dental amalgam is safe,” published in the peer-reviewed journal, Biometals, uses the same studies cited by FDA in 2006, demonstrating that children are particularly at risk for mercury poisoning.

The lawsuit suggests that the largest user of dental amalgam is the U.S. government, which uses amalgam for welfare recipients, prisoners, those residing on Indian Reservations, and the military, serving largely low-income people, including women and children, who are given no other options.

4 Comments » for New lawsuit challenges US FDA on dental amalgam mercury

IAOMT and James Love!!! Go at it!!!these ADA and FDA crooks with vested metals and medico/dental interests are fearing litigation but are still using mercury in teeth fillings and causing non-stop illnesses. It costs billions in other remedial treatments whilst all the time safe removal of the toxic mercury would do the job. Mercury is toxic. It must not be in the human body–ANYWHERE!
Angela Kilmartin London, UKhttp://www.angelakilmartin.com

Research showed that mercury from fillings has been found in many organs of the body such as the brain, kidneys etc. It is now known that mercury is released during heaving chewing or when having hot drinks. Mercury is very toxic and can harm the immune system.

It’s time the FDA acts! Dental amalgams, which vaporize mercury over the life of the filling, are completely banned in Sweden & other parts of Europe. The toxic effects, long term, on the “body load” of anyone are problematic, but are particularly dangerous in the shorter term to potentially growing numbers of sensitive & vulnerable individuals. In addition to the related health care costs, the biggest loss is in the inability of those damaged by mercury to fully utilize and contribute their wide-ranging and often high-level skills to Society.

Mercury, which offgasses from dental amalgam, is particularly dangerous to children and adults with a half dozen gene glitches that impact their methylation and detoxification pathways. They do not excrete it, it builds up over time, and triggers inflammation, fueling a raft of chronic diseases. One of these gene types represents 20%+ of the population, so the potential for harmful impacts is enormous.

Continuing to use it in dentistry defies logic and common sense, as the costs are foisted onto families, employers, health plans and governments. There are safer, long lasting alternatives available. Half of dentists no longer use it, and a growing list of other nations have banned or restricted its use.

The US stands increasingly alone in not labeling and providing consumer and patient information, and not requiring informed written consent. How we can label Cheerios and toothpaste and shampoos and not an installed medical device is beyond reason. We are at the tipping point, and dentists would be wise to urge the ADA to change its stance from within, and become part of the solution, instead of part of a very tragic problem.